DOCSLIB.ORG

2000~2001 2000~2001

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

NNORTHORTH AAMERICANMERICAN WWETLANDSETLANDS CCONSERVATIONONSERVATION AACTCT PPROGRESSROGRESS RREPORTEPORT 2000~20012000~2001 NNORTHORTH AAMERICANMERICAN WWETLANDSETLANDS CCONSERVATIONONSERVATION AACTCT PPROGRESSROGRESS RREPORTEPORT 2000~20012000~2001 North American Wetlands Conservation Council January 2002 Table of Contents North American Wetlands Conservation Act Reporting Requirements. ............1 Abbreviations Used in Tables . ............................2 U.S. North American Wetlands Conservation Act Projects ................... 3 Canadian North American Wetlands Conservation Act Projects . ................9 Mexican North American Wetlands Conservation Act Projects . ................12 Migratory Bird Trends . ................................13 International Agreements ................................15 U.S. Conservation Mechanisms . ............................16 Canadian Conservation Mechanisms ............................21 Mexican Conservation Mechanisms ............................25 Financial Statements . ................................26 Federal and Partner Dollars Invested in the United States. ....................27 Federal and Partner Dollars Invested in the U.S. Evaluation Grants . ................33 Federal and Partner Dollars Invested in Canada ........................34 Federal and Partner Dollars Invested in Mexico ........................37 North American Wetlands Conservation Council Membership . ................41 Migratory Bird Conservation Commission Membership . ....................41 i North American Wetlands Conservation Act Reporting Requirements This document fulfills the requirements of Section 10 and 16 of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1989. Sec. 10. REPORT TO CONGRESS. The Secretary shall report to the appropriate Committees on the implementation of this Act. The report shall include— (1) a biennial assessment of— (A) the estimated number of acres of wetlands and habitat for waterfowl and other migratory birds that were restored, protected, or enhanced during such two-year period by Federal, State, and local agencies and other entities in the United States, Canada, and Mexico; (B) trends in the populations size and distribution of North American migratory birds; (C) the status of efforts to establish agreements with nations in the western hemisphere pursuant to section 17 [presumed that intended reference is to section 16. OTHER AGREEMENTS, Subsection (a)] of this Act; and (D) wetlands conservation projects funded under this Act, listed and identified by type, conservation mechanism (such as acquisition, easement, or lease), location, and duration. (2) an annual assessment of the status of wetlands conservation projects, including an accounting of expenditures by Federal, State, and other United States entities, and expenditures by Canadian and Mexican sources to carry out these projects. Sec. 16. OTHER AGREEMENTS. (a) The Secretary shall undertake with the appropriate officials of nations in the western hemisphere to establish agreements, modeled after the (North American Waterfowl Management) Plan or the (Tripartite) Agreement, for the protection of migratory birds identified in section 13(a)(5) of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 2912(a)). When any such agreements are reached, the Secretary shall make recommendations to the appropriate Committees on legislation necessary to implement the agreements. 1 Abbreviations Used in Tables U.S. States/Territories Mexican States AK Alaska BCN Baja California Norte AL Alabama BCS Baja California Sur AR Arkansas CAM Campeche AZ Arizona CHIH Chihuahua CA California CHIS Chiapas CO Colorado DGO Durango FL Florida GTO Guanajuato GA Georgia NL Nuevo Leon HI Hawaii OAX Oaxaca IAIA Iowa Q.ROO Quintana Roo IDID Idaho SIN Sinaloa ILIL Illinois SON Sonora ININ Indiana TAMPS Tamaulipas KY Kentucky VER Veracruz LA Louisiana YUC Yucatan MA Massachusetts ZAC Zacatecas MD Maryland ME Maine Canadian Provinces MI Michigan MN Minnesota AB Alberta MO Missouri BC British Columbia MS Mississippi MB Manitoba MT Montana NB New Brunswick NC North Carolina NF Newfoundland ND North Dakota NS Nova Scotia NE Nebraska NT Northwest Territories NH New Hampshire NU Nunavut NJ New Jersey ON Ontario NY New York PE Prince Edward Island OH Ohio QC Quebec OK Oklahoma SK Saskatchewan OR Oregon YT Yukon Territories RI Rhode Island Project Type SC South Carolina SD South Dakota TN Tennessee A Acquired TX Texas R Restored UT Utah E Enhanced VA Virginia O Other VT Vermont Other WA Washington WI Wisconsin JV Joint Venture PPJV Prairie Pothole Joint Venture NAWCA North American Wetlands Conservation Act WMA Waterfowl Management Area WPA Wetlands Protection Area NWR National Wildlife Refuge mgmt ag ag Management Agreement 2 U.S. North American Wetlands Conservation Act Projects Arrayed by State Acres Protected, Restored, and Enhanced Fiscal Years 2000-2001 [Section 10(1)(A)] Acquired Restored Enhanced Date Project Title State Acres Acres Acres Approved Anchor River Floodplain Protection Project AK 324 0 0 6/20/00 Kachemak Bay Wetlands Conservation II AK 1,166 0 0 3/22/00 Promoting Linkages: Protecting the Furrow Creek AK 41 0 0 6/20/00 Total 1,531 0 0 Mobile-Tensaw Delta AL 14,655 0 0 3/22/00 Mobile-Tensaw Delta II AL 10,419 0 0 3/14/01 Total 25,074 0 0 Falcon Bottoms II AR 2,430 370 1,870 3/14/01 Lower Mississippi Valley Ecosystem II AR, LA, 1,101 8,066 22,125 3/22/00 MS, TN Seven Devils Swamp AR 3,445 0 0 9/15/99 Wetlands Protection, Restoration and Enhancement, AR, LA, MS 3,000 12,000 5,000 9/13/00 Private Lands in the Lower Mississippi Valley and Gulf Coast Total 9,976 20,436 28,995 Achii Hanyo Wildlife Preserve Wetlands II AZ 0 87 0 6/20/01 Whitewater Draw Wildlife Area Wetland Restoration AZ 80 40 0 6/20/00 Total 80 127 0 Arcata Marsh Wetland Acquisition CA 3 3 0 6/20/01 Arcata Marsh/McDaniel Slough Wetland Acquisition CA 12 12 12 6/23/99 Butte Basin & Colusa Trough Wetland Habitat CA 0 1,458 20,962 9/15/99 California North Coast Wetland Habitat II CA 698 300 1,930 9/13/00 Grasslands Ecological Area Enhancement & CA 0 2,557 51,851 3/22/00 Restoration II Grasslands IV, East Bear Creek CA 1,950 6,991 620 3/22/00 Humboldt Bay Enhancement CA 736 341 0 3/14/01 Klamath Basin Wetland CA, OR 4,562 19,045 1,190 9/15/99 North Central Valley Wetland Habitat III CA 10,181 5,323 6,675 3/14/01 Pintail Slough Wetlands Development CA 80 80 80 6/23/99 San Pablo Bay Tidal Wetlands CA 1,138 7,752 9,941 3/22/00 Suisun Marsh: Lower Joice Island Acquisition CA 1,300 1,000 0 9/13/00 & Enhancement Triangle Marsh Acquisition & Restoration CA 31 7 0 6/23/99 Tulare Lake Basin Wetland Habitat CA 2,762 2,962 22,436 3/14/01 Upper Little Lake Ranch Habitat Restoration CA 1 310 0 6/20/00 & Enhancement Zuniga Creek, Wetlands & Watershed CA 120 0 0 6/20/00 Total 23,574 48,141 115,697 Lower South Platte River Wetland & Riparian CO 4,700 5,404 990 3/14/01 Restoration I Playa/Riparian/Wetland Colorado Partnership CO 17,780 6,082 665 3/14/01 Sombrero Marsh Restoration CO 42 42 0 6/23/99 Total 22,522 11,528 1,655 Multi-state projects are listed in each state where they occur. Full figures are given with each listing. 3 U.S. North American Wetlands Conservation Act Projects Arrayed by State Acres Protected, Restored, and Enhanced Fiscal Years 2000-2001 [Section 10(1)(A)] Acquired Restored Enhanced Date Project Title State Acres Acres Acres Approved Beecher Acquisition FL 62 0 0 6/23/99 Sanibel Gardens Preserve Restoration FL 0 230 0 6/20/00 West Pond Restoration I FL 0 0 50 6/20/01 Total 62 230 50 Acquisition & Protection of Riverine Wetlands, GA 40 0 0 6/20/00 Broad River Altamaha River Corridor Habitat Conservation GA 2,418 0 0 3/14/01 South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative Habitat GA, NC, SC 6,386 608 1,429 9/13/00 Conservation Total 8,844 608 1,429 Montane Wetlands Restoration for Hawaiian HI 0 365 0 6/20/01 Duck & Nene II Total 0 365 0 Great River Corridor Initiative IA, MN 1,994 571 240 3/14/01 Iowa Prairie Waters Initiative IA 5,562 2,358 1,042 3/14/01 Iowa Wetland - Complex Restoration IA 0 1,250 0 6/20/00 Iowa WPA/WMA Small Wetland Restoration IA 0 436 0 6/20/00 Acceleration Nahant Marsh Preserve & Educational Field Station IA 36 36 0 6/23/99 Northcentral Iowa Wetlands IA 7,634 4,843 0 9/15/99 Owego Wetland Complex Acquisition & Restoration IA 1,317 650 200 6/20/00 Shell Rock River Watershed IA, MN 74 60 0 6/20/00 Upper Wapsi Wetlands, Iowa IA 3,716 450 479 9/13/00 Total 20,333 10,654 1,961 Kootenai Valley Wetlands ID 5,216 4,106 200 3/14/01 Teton River Basin Wetland Conservation II ID 1,283 5,491 17,632 3/22/00 Total 6,499 9,597 17,832 Cache River Wetlands III IL 2,802 1,900 1,591 9/15/99 Hennepin-Hopper Lakes Restoration IL 2,466 2,272 20 3/14/01 Illinois River Basin I IL 1,095 1,377 3,730 3/14/01 Total 6,363 5,549 5,341 Boot Lake Nature Preserve IN 146 0 146 6/20/00 Southern Lake Michigan Coastal Wetlands III IN 710 594 60 3/14/01 Southwest Indiana Four Rivers III IN 3,693 760 450 3/22/00 Spreads of the Elkhart Marsh IN 176 176 0 6/20/00 Total 4,725 1,530 656 Green River State Forest KY 120 120 120 6/23/99 Total 120 120 120 Multi-state projects are listed in each state where they occur. Full figures are given with each listing. 4 U.S. North American Wetlands Conservation Act Projects Arrayed by State Acres Protected, Restored, and Enhanced Fiscal Years 2000-2001 [Section 10(1)(A)] Acquired Restored Enhanced Date Project Title State Acres Acres Acres Approved Acadiana Park Wetland Preservation LA 200 0 0 6/20/00 Louisiana Coastal Wetlands LA 0 30,558 40,348 9/13/00
Recommended publications
  • Wetlands: an Overview of Issues

    Wetlands: an Overview of Issues

    Order Code RL33483 Wetlands: An Overview of Issues Updated November 25, 2008 Claudia Copeland Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division Wetlands: An Overview of Issues Summary The 110th Congress, like earlier ones, considered numerous policy topics that involve wetlands. A few of the topics were new to this Congress, such as wetlands provisions in the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246), while most were examined but not resolved in earlier Congresses, such as applying federal regulations on private lands, wetland loss rates, and restoration and creation accomplishments. The 110th Congress also considered wetland topics at the program level, responding to legal decisions and administrative actions affecting the jurisdictional boundary limits of the federal wetland permit program in the Clean Water Act (CWA). Perhaps the issue receiving the greatest attention was determining which wetlands should be included and excluded from permit requirements under the CWA’s regulatory program, as a result of Supreme Court rulings in 2001 (in the SWANCC case) that narrowed federal regulatory jurisdiction over certain isolated wetlands, and in June 2006 (in the Rapanos-Carabell decision) that left the jurisdictional reach of the permit program to be determined on a case-by-case basis. In the 110th Congress, House and Senate committees held hearings on legislation intended to reverse the Court’s rulings (H.R. 2421, S. 1870). Wetland protection efforts continue to engender intense controversy over issues of science and policy. Controversial topics include the rate and pattern of loss, whether all wetlands should be protected in a single fashion, the effectiveness of the current suite of laws in protecting them, and the fact that 75% of remaining U.S.
  • Measuring Outcomes of Wetland Restoration, Enhancement, and Creation in Idaho—Assessing Potential Functions, Values, and Condition

    Measuring Outcomes of Wetland Restoration, Enhancement, and Creation in Idaho—Assessing Potential Functions, Values, and Condition

    Measuring outcomes of wetland restoration, enhancement, and creation in Idaho—Assessing potential functions, values, and condition in a watershed context Wildlife Bureau, Habitat Section Idaho Department of Fish and Game PO Box 25 Boise, Idaho 83707 Franklin Wetland Mitigation (left); Jewel Wetland (right) Chris Murphy Tim Weekley EPA Wetland Program 2012 Development Grant # CD – 00J006-01 ABSTRACT A wetland restoration monitoring and assessment program framework was developed for Idaho. The project goal was to assess outcomes of substantial governmental and private investment in wetland restoration, enhancement and creation. The functions, values, condition, and vegetation at restored, enhanced, and created wetlands on private and state lands across Idaho were retrospectively evaluated. Assessment was conducted at multiple spatial scales and intensities. Potential functions and values (ecosystem services) were rapidly assessed using the Oregon Rapid Wetland Assessment Protocol. Vegetation samples were analyzed using Floristic Quality Assessment indices from Washington State. We compared vegetation of restored, enhanced, and created wetlands with reference wetlands that occurred in similar hydrogeomorphic environments determined at the HUC 12 level. HUC 12s were classified using cluster analysis according to spatially derived hydrologic, geologic, soils, and climate data into watershed ecological groups. A primary outcome of this project was that stakeholders are better informed about how restoration benefits watershed processes, functions,
  • Soil Carbon Protocol Development

    Soil Carbon Protocol Development

    Soil Carbon Protocols Public Scoping Meeting March 6, 2013 Sacramento, CA Agenda 1. Introductions 2. Overview of the Climate Action Reserve 3. Protocol development process 4. Soil carbon scoping a) Grasslands b) Peatlands 5. Feedback & discussion 2 Introductions . Climate Action Reserve − Max DuBuisson, Senior Policy Manager − Teresa Lang, Policy Manager − Sami Osman, Policy Manager . Attendees 3 CLIMATE ACTION RESERVE OVERVIEW 4 What We Do . Mission: to promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by pioneering credible market-based policies and solutions . Development of high-quality, stakeholder-driven, standardized project protocols . Accredited offset project registry under the California cap- and-trade program . Serve compliance and voluntary carbon markets . Reputation for integrity and experience in providing best-in- class registry services for offset markets 5 Separation of Roles . Independent from the State of California . Reserve does not fund or develop projects . Does not take ownership of offsets . Is not an exchange . Is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization . Independent from third-party verification – Consistent with international standards – ANSI accreditation, training by Reserve or ARB 6 Serving Multiple Markets . Compliance market: – Compliance buyers under California’s cap-and-trade – Western Climate Initiative – CEQA compliance . Voluntary market: – Voluntary corporate buyers – LEED certification (USGBC) – Retail and individual buyers 7 CA Compliance Offsets . Early action: projects use Reserve protocols, and then move to compliance program through a desk verification . Compliance offsets: credits issued against compliance protocols . 4 Reserve protocols adopted for early action and adapted for compliance use – Forest, Urban Forest, Livestock, Ozone Depleting Substances . Additional protocols will be developed by ARB staff, building upon existing methodologies – Strong interest in agricultural protocols – Next up: Rice Cultivation, Coal Mine Methane – workshop in Sacramento March 28 8 Compliance Offset Market .
  • APPENDIX B - Regulatory and Non-Regulatory Programs That Contain Bmps Applicable to Protecting and Restoring Waters Within the Basin

    APPENDIX B - Regulatory and Non-Regulatory Programs That Contain Bmps Applicable to Protecting and Restoring Waters Within the Basin

    Basin 11 Management Plan ANR June 2008 APPENDICIES APPENDIX A................................................................................................................................2 APPENDIX A.1 - Statutory Index.............................................................................................. 2 APPENDIX A.2 - Basin 11 Council Members and Technical Advisors.................................... 5 APPENDIX A.3 - Basin 11 Planning Partners ......................................................................... 10 APPENDIX A.4 - Public Meeting Held in Basin 11................................................................ 11 APPENDIX A.5 - Municipal Meetings Regarding Surface Water Classification and Typing 19 APPENDIX A.6 - Functions and Values of Selected Wetlands............................................... 20 APPENDIX A.7 - Summary of Physical, Chemical, and Biological Assessments of Basin 11 Completed or Underway................................................................................................... 23 APPENDIX A.8 - Threatened and Endangered Species in Basin 11 ....................................... 26 APPENDIX A.9 - Dams ........................................................................................................... 32 APPENDIX A.10 - Agriculture in Basin 11............................................................................. 35 APPENDIX A.11 - Maps of Basin 11 with Proposed Typing and Classification.................... 49 APPENDIX A.12 - Description of Proposed Water Management
  • The Long Island Historical Journal

    The Long Island Historical Journal

    THE LONG ISLAND HISTORICAL JOURNAL United States Army Barracks at Camp Upton, Yaphank, New York c. 1917 Fall 2003/ Spring 2004 Volume 16, Nos. 1-2 Starting from fish-shape Paumanok where I was born… Walt Whitman Fall 2003/ Spring 2004 Volume 16, Numbers 1-2 Published by the Department of History and The Center for Regional Policy Studies Stony Brook University Copyright 2004 by the Long Island Historical Journal ISSN 0898-7084 All rights reserved Articles appearing in this journal are abstracted and indexed in Historical Abstracts and America: History and Life The editors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Office of the Provost and of the Dean of Social and Behavioral Science, Stony Brook University (SBU). We thank the Center for Excellence and Innovation in Education, SBU, and the Long Island Studies Council for their generous assistance. We appreciate the unstinting cooperation of Ned C. Landsman, Chair, Department of History, SBU, and of past chairpersons Gary J. Marker, Wilbur R. Miller, and Joel T. Rosenthal. The work and support of Ms. Susan Grumet of the SBU History Department has been indispensable. Beginning this year the Center for Regional Policy Studies at SBU became co-publisher of the Long Island Historical Journal. Continued publication would not have been possible without this support. The editors thank Dr. Lee E. Koppelman, Executive Director, and Ms. Edy Jones, Ms. Jennifer Jones, and Ms. Melissa Jones, of the Center’s staff. Special thanks to former editor Marsha Hamilton for the continuous help and guidance she has provided to the new editor. The Long Island Historical Journal is published annually in the spring.
  • Long Island, As Long Island

    Long Island, As Long Island

    F 127 .L8 fl7 Copy 1 W^mmmMM A NEW AND COMPLETE VOLUME OF INFORMATION With Original Pen and Ink Sketches by EUGENE L. ARMBRUSTER €adle Cibrary M^o. 182 SiP A VIEW OF THE HAIRDRESSING ESTABLISHMENT OF MRS. TYLER-MILLER AT 80-82 FLEET STREET, BROOKLYN. MRS. TYLER-MILLER'S HAIRDRESSING ESTABLISHMENT Mrs. Tyler-Miller conducts at 80 Fleet ury and privacy of their own boudoirs. Mrs. Street, one of the oldest and best known hair- Tyler-Miller has a large force of helpers, who dressing establishments in Brooklyn, having are experts in their respective lines, such as given satisfaction to her many patrons at that the making of hair goods, shampooing, scalp address for over twenty years. Last sea- treatment, hairdressing, facial massage, and son, on account of the large increase in her manicuring, but Mrs. Tyler-Miller gives her patronage, she added the building at 82 Fleet personal supervision and advice to each pat- Street, thus doubling her space. Mrs. Tyler- ron and her personal attention to every detail Miller's establishment is fitted up in the most of the business, and, as she is an expert in her elegant manner and is equipped with every line, the business is conducted on a first-class modem convenience needed in her business. basis. .Her prices are moderate and she of- Her patrons include many of the leading so- fers special inducements to ladies living on ciety women of Brooklyn and Long Island, as Long Island. She is very glad to show visit- they find in the private rooms, which are a ors her establishment and they will find much I feature of the establishment, the lux- to interest them there.
  • Legal Protection Assessment of Different Inland Wetlands in Chile Patricia Möller1,2* and Andrés Muñoz-Pedreros3

    Legal Protection Assessment of Different Inland Wetlands in Chile Patricia Möller1,2* and Andrés Muñoz-Pedreros3

    Möller and Muñoz-Pedreros Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 2014, 87:23 http://www.revchilhistnat.com/content/87/1/23 RESEARCH Open Access Legal protection assessment of different inland wetlands in Chile Patricia Möller1,2* and Andrés Muñoz-Pedreros3 Abstract Background: Inland wetlands are well represented ecosystems in Chile that are subjected to various pressures affecting conservation. Protection means legal and administrative initiatives which promote the protection and/or preservation of a wetland, either in its entirety, considering their areas of influence or its components. Results: The aim of this work is to develop a methodology for estimating the value of protection of different types of inland wetlands in Chile. For this purpose: a) the Chilean regulations in relation to the issues of biodiversity, wetlands and water resources were compiled; (b) such legislation and its application were analyzed, (c) protection and restriction values of each legal standard was estimated, and then total protection value of standards applied to six types of wetlands in study. 47 legal rules related to protection of inland wetlands and eight directly or indirectly affecting conservation and wise use of wetlands were identified. Conclusions: In Chile there is no specific statutory rules or regulations on wetlands. Current legal standards do not protect equally the different types of inland wetlands, being swamp forests, peatlands and brackish Andean lakes less protected. To improve wetlands conservation, incentives promoting wetlands destruction must be eliminated and promulgate specific regulations for proper management and conservation. Keywords: Inland wetlands; Legal standards; Real protection; Wetland protection Background Wetlands support high biodiversity and are presently Chile is highly diverse in limnic systems mostly recog- recognized as the most threatened systems by human nized as wetlands and defined as ‘areas of marsh, fen, activities (Marín et al.
  • Long Island Calendar for 1902

    Long Island Calendar for 1902

    F 1902 LONL T5 ^^^M Pass, F 1^7 Bonk , L % U ABRAM NEWKIRK LITTLEJOHN. D.D., LL.D., D.C-L. FIRST BISHOP OF LONG ISLAND. If i Cong Tsland Calendar For mi Cedcn(l$ mvtbs stories and l^istorical Sketches of Cong Tslana Ulitb many Tllu$tration$ PUBLISHED FOR the: mid-winti:r fete: €4 from Colonial Jimerica to tU United States, its Colonies and Protectorates." BrMKlyn new VorR. COPYRIGHT-Ar.l, RIGHTS RESERVED, CueiEa fiECEivee> :c. 20 1901 JftpvRiQHT ENTRY /iZ^-XXo. No. Sewanhacky (Island of Shells^, or Paumanack, ITH its area of 1,682 square When the Dutch came they called it Long miles and 2 5omilesof coast line, Island. The Colonial Lesiglature in 1682 with its rocky foundation and called it Nassau. In the Charter granted by great boulders, its range of hills James I. in 1620 it was conveyed to the 60 miles long, varying from 150 to 384 feet Earl of Stirling under the title of "Island above the sea level, and its little lakes, its of Meitowax" or Long Island. Breucklyn wonderful dunes and lagoons, its fifty miles (Brooklyn), Amersfort (Flatlands), Vluss- of pine forests extending through the sandy hingen (Flushing), Rustdorpe (Jamaica), plains, the winter resting place of the eider and New Utrecht were founded by the duck, the little white goose, the great Dutch between 1630 and 1654, while cormorant and the auk, the summer home Southhold, the Hamptons, Hempstead, of the turkey buzzard, the swallow-tailed Oyster Bay, Smithtown, Islip, Huntington, the British between kite and the fork-tailed fly-catcher ; while etc., were founded by deer roamed at will through the forests, 1640 and 1666.
  • Landowner Guide to Reforestation Assistance

    Landowner Guide to Reforestation Assistance

    LANDOWNER GUIDE TO REFORESTATION ASSISTANCE IN THE LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER VALLEY 2 November 2016 Landowner Guide to Reforestation Assistance in the Lower Mississippi River Valley was produced by the Trust for Public Land with funding support from the Walton Family Foundation and with cooperation and contributions of the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture. Special thanks to the following agencies and organizations for their assistance: USDA Farm Services Agency, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Arkansas Game and Fisheries Commission, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Mississippi Department of Wildlife Fisheries and Parks, Mississippi Forestry Commission, Delta Wildlife, Ducks Unlimited, GreenTrees, The Nature Conservancy, National Audubon Society, Wildlife Mississippi and The Trust for Public Land Cover Photo Credits FRONT COVER (FROM TOP TO BOTTOM) - Agricultural landscape in Louisiana, USDA, NRCS; Recent reforestation on WRE restoration site in Mississippi, USDA, NRCS BACK COVER PHOTOS (FROM LEFT TO RIGHT) - Ibises, USDA, NRCS; NRCS employee and farmer look at conservation plan, USDA, NRCS; NRCS Swamp, USDA, NRCS; Riparian Buffer LA, USDA, NRCS; Fawn NRCS, USDA, NRCS; Sunset LA, USDA, NRCS Recommended citation: Landowner Guide to Reforestation Assistance in the Lower Mississippi River Valley. 2016. The Trust for Public Land. For more information about The Trust for Public Land’s work in the Mississippi Delta, contact [email protected].
  • Central Valley of California and Upper Klamath River Basin

    Central Valley of California and Upper Klamath River Basin

    Conservation Effects Assessment Project— Wetlands Assessment in California’s Central Valley and Upper Klamath River Basin Open-File Report 2011–1290 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Conservation Effects Assessment Project—Wetlands Assessment in California’s Central Valley and Upper Klamath River Basin Edited by Walter G. Duffy, U.S. Geological Survey; Sharon N. Kahara, Humboldt State University; and Rosemary M. Records, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011–1290 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2011 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod. To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov. Suggested citation: Duffy, W.G., Kahara, S.N., and Records, R.M., eds., 2011, Conservation Effects Assessment Project— Wetlands assessment in California’s Central Valley and Upper Klamath River Basin: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011-1290, 128 p. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report.
  • Field Guide to the 2008 Farm Bill for Fish and Wildlife Conservation

    Field Guide to the 2008 Farm Bill for Fish and Wildlife Conservation

    Field Guide to the 2008 Farm Bill for Fish and Wildlife Conservation A Publication of the U.S. NABCI Committee and the Intermountain West Joint Venture May 2009 Acknowledgements Author: Randall Gray Randall worked for 31 years for the USDA NRCS, where he helped develop, deliver, and evaluate Farm Bill conservation programs. Before retiring, his final position was the National Wildlife Biologist. He is presently the Farm Bill Coordinator for the Intermountain West Joint Venture. Financial Contributions: Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Intermountain West Joint Venture The Nature Conservancy, Migratory Bird Program Gray Wildlife Consulting U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The following contributed to or reviewed this guide: Roxanne Bogart, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wes Burger, Mississippi State University Barth Crouch, Playa Lakes Joint Venture Leslie Deavers, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Terrell Erickson, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Deborah Hahn, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Jon Haufler, Ecosystem Management Research Institute Steve Hilburger, United States Geological Survey Luke Miller, Ohio Department of Natural Resources Sal Palazzolo, Arizona Game and Fish Department Matthew Ponish, USDA Farm Services Agency Charlie Rewa, USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service Steve Riley, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission Dave Smith, Intermountain West Joint Venture Reggie Thackston, Georgia Department of Natural Resources Bill White, Missouri Department of Conservation USDA Natural Resources
  • An Introduction to High-Frequency Nutrient and Biogeochemical Monitoring for the Sacramento– San Joaquin Delta, Northern California

    An Introduction to High-Frequency Nutrient and Biogeochemical Monitoring for the Sacramento– San Joaquin Delta, Northern California

    Prepared in cooperation with the Delta Regional Monitoring Program An Introduction to High-Frequency Nutrient and Biogeochemical Monitoring for the Sacramento– San Joaquin Delta, Northern California Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5071 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey FRONT COVER: Top left: Photograph showing monitoring buoy at Liberty Island, California, being serviced by hydrologic technician. Photograph by Bryan Downing, December 19, 2013. Bottom Left: Example of a daily report for the monitoring buoy in Liberty Island, California that is emailed out to interested parties. Report generated by Frank Anderson, 2014. Bottom middle: Photograph showing vertical water quality profiler in the Sacramento River. Photograph by Michael Sauer, April 16, 2013. Right: Map of nitrate concentrations collected via high speed boat mapping in the Cache Slough Complex/North Delta. Map created by Travis von Dessonneck and Bryan Downing, October 10, 2014. BACK COVER: Top left: Photograph showing monitoring buoy at Liberty Island, California. Photograph by Bryan Downing, March 8, 2017. Bottom Left: Photograph showing vertical profiling instrumentation, Sacramento River, Freeport, California. Photograph courtesy of Michael Sauer, April 16, 2013. Right: Photograph showing flow monitoring station in Liberty Island, California. Photograph by Bryan Downing, March 8, 2017. Bottom: Photograph showing sunset in the northern Delta, Little Holland Tract, California. Photograph by Bryan Downing, March 8, 2017. An Introduction to High-Frequency Nutrient and Biogeochemical Monitoring for the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, Northern California By Tamara E.C. Kraus, Brian A. Bergamaschi, and Bryan D. Downing Prepared in cooperation with the Delta Regional Monitoring Program Scientific Investigations Report 2017–5071 U.S.